Update hole

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety story is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what fields get modified, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, or what the rule codes EVAC-002/GEN-003/GEO-004 actually constrain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is tight and front-loaded. The second line is terse but its rule-tag format is opaque and arguably wastes space rather than earning it, so structure is adequate but not clean.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and an undocumented geometry parameter, the description is insufficient. An agent cannot tell what an update actually changes about the hole or how to populate xb.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%: while 'id' is documented in the schema, the 'xb' parameter (a 6-element coordinate array) has no description anywhere. The description mentions only the ID and does nothing to explain xb's meaning or format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing hole by ID'), which cleanly separates it from add_hole, remove_hole, and update_obstacle. It does not, however, explain what a 'hole' is in this context or how the update differs from sibling mutations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as remove_hole or add_hole. The appended '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-002, GEN-003, GEO-004 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' is a cryptic tag rather than actionable routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.